The claims are based on computer models, not measurements. They can’t even forecast the climate next month, much less measure the causes. Rising sea levels tell you nothing about changes in temperature. Sea level would be rising even if the climate was completely stable.

Straw man. No one disputes it.

Complete nonsense. Manhattan is not underwater as Hansen forecast. Sea level is rising below the low end of IPCC projections. Antarctic sea ice has increased, not decreased. Temperatures have not risen at all for over a decade. Hansen’s temperature forecasts were way off the mark.

The animation below shows the beach outside Somerville’s office. It hasn’t changed a bit over the last 140 years. How can he claim that sea level is rising fast? Does he never look out the window?

Again, complete nonsense. There are many arguments which never get addressed. They refuse to debate. Plenty of research indicates that temperatures can and have changed dramatically in short periods of time. The causes of ice ages are not well defined at any level of detail.

Get serious. Even the true believers at The Guardian were outraged by the Climategate/IPCC malfeasance and incompetence. If it weren’t for bloggers, the same crap would still be going on.

He must have missed Hal Lewis’ letter. The bottom line is that their claims don’t hold water, so the only way to win is to try to silence dissenting opinions.

97 Responses to The Pinocchio Syndrome

Hey Steven, I love the way you describe the greenhouse effect as a strawman argument.
What a laugh! I think this is a great argument and I recommend it for a crazy prize! This is the ultimate rebuttal to climate change and better than anything that Minckton has produced. You are one really funny guy!

Richard Sommerville editorial
“Unfortunately, the world needs to take firm action about the threat of manmade climate change within the next decade…”

Compare and contrast:

San Jose Mercury News (CA) – June 30, 1989
“A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000……… He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect… “

and

James Hansen – interview 1989
“If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?”
“The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there.”

Hi Steve Goddard,
Here is a suggestion. When copying stories could you please consider actual text instead of an image. This is because when I want to comment on a quote I have to type it out instead of copying and pasting. Just a suggestion.

I usually attempt to ignore the likes of CP and RC but it is difficult to ignore a festering sore. This is just more of the same BS coming out of that group.
There are to many fantasies to even address in this from Brother Joseph!

Are you familiar with an in depth analysis by John Nicol, emeritus Prof. James Cook Uni. Townsville Aus. regarding the ability of CO2 to effect temp? Along with Claes Johnson, Prof. Applied Maths Stockholm, he debunks the physics of GHGs completely. My maths and physics are way below the standard required to do anything but read and try to understand but both seem certain that the physics of GHG warming is wrong, certainly the ‘back radiation’ which , in turn, is supported by Dr Spencer, Lindzen and others. Micklowski(?) also challenges the idea that CO2 has any effect on temp.
Are you able to help my tiny brain?
Not completely off topic but I don’t know how else to ask.

“Plenty of research indicates that temperatures can and have changed dramatically in short periods of time. The causes of ice ages are not well defined at any level of detail.”
Straw man – again! We know with certainty that such times were not affected by human GHG emissions.

Rather than just saying “Hey, it’s nonsense” why don’t you actually address the arguments presented? Since you seem to think you’re so much smarter than anyone else then I’m sure you should be able to refute him very easily or am I missing something?

Steven:
I see no need to answer propaganda fantasies from a being that is attempting to resurrect the dead AGW fairy tale by using the name “Lazarus”. Maybe this is an indication some believe the return of the Messiah will resurrect global warming.
How much attention should be paid to one who believes they are dead and are waiting to be resurrected.

Who’s asking for a rewrite. Your original post has many errors and fallacies. I have just pointed some out.

For example you could support your claim that “Temperatures have not risen at all for over a decade”, and refute the graph I have linked to, by showing another graph from a credible source with a temperature trend for the last decade that shows “Temperatures have not risen at all for over a decade.”

But you chose to call the evidence I supplied nonsense without justification. Hopefully you can do better than that.

L:
Properly adjusted temperature records show there has been no change in the temperature during the Holocene. (If you use a 20 thousand year smoothing!) I think Mann did that already for the Hockey stick!
The main fallacies are those you are using.

Now that is nonsense. If temperatures haven’t risen then they haven’t risen and a graph showing the trend will show that – it shows the opposite.

There is nothing difficult here, if what you say is true and not just what you believe to be true, then you must have based your belief on some, hopefully credible , evidence. You have had plenty of opportunity to present any support you have for you beliefs but have not and there is credible evidence refuting your claims. It is that simple

The temperatures today are lower than in 1998 at the warmest period of the El-Nino.
Phil Jones even admitted that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. If you can find before current adjusted temperature records you would see that the 30s were warmer than this decade. If not statistically warmer then not statistically cooler either. The temperature range in the 2 decades was within know error bands.

Of course what we are calling global temperature records are not temperature records but estimates or modeled temperature records based on best guess estimates (SWAG) which requires adjusting historical records to fit the estimated. Historical climate records need to be fluid rather than fixed as they are related to an average of estimated temperature means.
SAT is a result of a model output based on input of Best Guess Estimates according to NASA Q and A web page. SAT is not based on reality.
That is similar to “Wind Chill Factor” and its opposite “Heat Index”
The government placed thermometers where a general idea of the local temperature was needed, such as airports where planes need to know approximate temperature for take off. They were not placed as a climate indicator. Just the equipment used to measure temperatures has a + or – 2C error range and siting issues can induce more than 5C of error.
Your claim of having “Data” for temperature is based on the GIGO concept.

L:
Your concept of warmer than is amazing. There are fantasy magazines looking for people with your talent!
There is not enough time to determine a trend due to natural variations in weather patterns. It is necessary to take all known weather patterns into account and find a trend over a period which covers a sufficient number of combinations of regional weather patterns to become globally significant. Come back and talk to us about it in ten thousand years!

“Sure, when La Nina reaches its bottom next spring, I will be happy to do that.”

And when that happens, if it shows warming for both accounts will you issue a retraction for this “Temperatures have not risen at all for over a decade” nonsense?

Now we have established, even using your graph that there has been at least some warming in the last decade what about your other misinformation in the post;

Are you still saying that there isn’t a professional disinformation campaign when the evidence is clear that it evolved from the tobacco industry thinktanks and receives funds from the fossil fuel industries?

Are you claiming it is a straw man to say some deniers dispute the greenhouse effect when there are numerous links to wingnuts saying exactly that and claiming academic qualifications and alternative physics as ‘evidence’?

Do you have any proof that Hansen said Manhattan will be underwater in any science that has his name on it?

Have you any links saying what sea levels the IPCC claim for 2010 and that they are lower than this?

Are you still claiming that Arctic sea ice has increased (and can you confirm if you are taking about area, mass or both), despite giving no supporting science and country to existing science?

Are you still suggesting past climate change disproves present when conditions must be different?

Are you still saying Guardian staff call stolen emails from CRU and the IPCC malfeasance and incompetence?

Do you recognised that Hal Lewis is not a publishing climatologist and his opinions should be with that in mind?

I ti s good to see that there are some people commenting here who have a reasonable grasp of the science.After reading the article I was going to write much of what lazarus wrote, and am glad that he allows me to contest this article in a different way.

Tell that to Judith Curry, Hal Lewis, Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer …… –Judith Curry is a critic of the IPCC and climate science in general. She is more in line with being an actual skeptic than a denier. I have read some of her blog and her interactions with climate sciences. My general conclusion is that she has a good general intention in terms of how to deal with complexity and uncertainty, but is pretty clueless when it comes to sociology and issues around deception. She vastly over-inflates her conclusions by focusing on specific issues like climate-gate at the same time she totally ignores the political reality of the situation. In this case, she treats the climate-gate emails as if they were about the diversity of hemoglobin geometry in mammals. where there is absolutely no political motivation for defensiveness. If that was the issue, then the acerbic and sometimes nasty emails about people who were questioning the science WOULD indicate a serious scientific malfeasance. However the reality is that climate deniers have been targeting these scientists for years, and the emails are a response to perceived harassment and what they considered to be junk science aimed at preventing action against a potentially terribly threat to civilization. The fact that Curry doesn’t understand that, and the way that she frames questions pretty much discounts her as any kind of authority about the issues she is bringing up. Of course she acknowledges that she doesn’t know much about any of this stuff, so maybe when she learns more, she will see these issues more clearly.
Hal Lewis and freeman Dyson know nothing about climate science and your inclusion of them is worthless.
Lintzen and Singer are real scientists and their views are worth considering. To my knowledge neither Lindzen or Singer has questioned the science of climate change. What they DO question are some of the conclusions. I have seen neither rail that science journals are in the business of wholesale publishing of bad science (of course Singer may have, since he doesn’t believe in the CFC/ozone connection) Lindzen’s focus is on climate variability and homeostatic mechanisms that would limit the feedback from the immense increase in CO2 over the last 100 years. His papers are published, and equally competent and brilliant scientists have found major problems with his conclusions. I will be very interested when ONE top flight cliamte scientist who has supported ACC comes out and says that he was wrong and the science now shows that it isn’t happening.
One quick aside. 1998 was a HUGE outlier. Trying to pretend temp hasn’t increased based on that would be like saying, the Dems are going to Win 40 more seats in the house tomorrow based on 2006 and 8.

Claims of ACC are based on computer models not measurements.– Sorry, but measurements of sea ice mass, glacier melting, uncountable changes in seasonal behavior of plants and animals, and yes, sea level change, proxy data (even the much maligned hockey stick) are almost all completely consistant with ACC. “they can’t forecast the climate next month” … That is too easy . Pittsburgh Pirates might have beaten Tampa Bay during the season ,but you can be quite sure they are not going to make it to the World Series. predicting weather over a month away IS and predicting climate trends based on massive CO2 injection into the atmosphere is NOT rocket science.

Greenhouse effect is a straw man. – And then one of the comments is someone contesting it! that is one of the main arguments I see in denier websites in the comment section, yet I almost NEVER see denier articles that put them in their place! And you do not even respond to T.G. Watkins request for help on this issue, whereas you have plenty of time to respond to Lazarus. You lose a lot of credibility there.

Manhattan is not underwater as Hansen forecast. Sea level is rising below the low end of IPCC projections. Antarctic sea ice has increased, not decreased. Temperatures have not risen at all for over a decade. Hansen’s temperature forecasts were way off the mark.– Hanson’s forecast were actually quite accurate in terms of temp. As lazarus points out there have been no scientific papers saying sea level rise of more than a meter or two in the next 50-100 years. If Hansen said that he was exaggerating and knew it. No problem calling him on it. Sea level rise has increased, the rate and factors governing it are highly complex and the amounts are so small at the BEGINNING of the massive CO2 infusion, that to argue about it now is plain stupid, as is showing a picture of where Sommerville lives. it means nothing and is totally bogus. Even a meter high sea level rise will have vastly different effects in different locals. Antarctic sea ice has increased, and there are quite valid explanations of that from ACC theory. Ice build up and temperature on a global scale involve many factors and local variations. Just as increased snow in the northeast is predicted by ACC yet used by ignorant skeptics to counter it. The temp has risen since 1998. it was higher in 2005 and probably this year, in spite of a rather large volcano in the middle of summer. And 10 years is WAY to small a time period. Jones statistical significance will be scientifically valid at the end of 2010, I bet. that means 95% likelihood.

There are many arguments which never get addressed. They refuse to debate. Plenty of research indicates that temperatures can and have changed dramatically in short periods of time. The causes of ice ages are not well defined at any level of detail.–
What arguments don’t get addressed? You don’t mention any. I have seen probably over a hundred arguments against ACC and all have been very effectively addressed Even the absurd ones, like Mars and Neptune are heating up! This is NOT a debate. this is science. Show me peer reviewed research, or non peer reviewed research that Lindzen says was kept out of the journals because of a conspiracy and I will listen. Climate scientists know that there have been relatively fast changes in climate. This one might set a record though, outside of asteroid impacts! Not sure if you are right about the causes of ice ages, but there has been much study of this, and I am not just going to accept your word on this considering the slipperiness of the rest of your contentions

Get serious. Even the true believers at The Guardian were outraged by the Climategate/IPCC malfeasance and incompetence. If it weren’t for bloggers, the same crap would still be going on.–
What malfeasance and incompetence? 5 investigations, all found none except regarding FOI, which frankly I might have reacted the same in their situation. What papers have been shown to have been fraudulent? What records have been shown to have been falsified? I have read hundreds of the emails and most of the hysterical analysis by denier websites and the only substantive scientific charges were laughable. “Mike’s hide the decline “trick”, Jones’ “where is the warming”, etc all had clear explanations that involved no fraud and no conspiracy. In fact the emails pretty much prove there is NO conspiracy, just a hatred for people like McIntyre. Some of the top climate scientists in the world couldn’t even keep a shoddy article out of a marginal climate journal. Now I will grant you THAT is incompetence. Climate scientists have proven themselves thoroughly incompetent at conspiracy.

Then you end the piece with Hal Lewis letter. That really has me shaking my head. WHERE in his letter of resignation does he back up ANYTHING he is saying? he just states the conspiracy as being real because he says it is. Where is this TRILLIONS( where does he get that figure?) of dollars going? it is certainly not making these scientists rich. Mann and Jones and Pachauri are not millionaires. They make a decent living, but would be well under Obama’s tax cut cap.
Lewis decries ACC as junk science but he offers no scientific facts to back it up.

Finally I will grant you that climate science is just starting to mature. it is one of the most complicated scientific endeavors ever attempted to be explained, because it has potentially dramatic impact on our lives. theoretically I agree with some of Pilke’s and Curry’s objections, and I have serious reservations about how aspects of science are pursued and understood. But both Pilke and Curry have major faults in their perspective, and the skeptic/denier movement is maybe two orders of magnitude worse than the science of climate change. As you have shown regarding the reality of Greenhouse Theory there is almost no skepticism WITHIN the denier movement. Any enemy of ACC is welcomed and all arguments are flung at ACC. The pseudo science is on par with Soviet Propaganda, except the Soviets were right about Hitler (at least until their 1939 “little Ice age” which quickly melted in the 1941 march to Moscow).
As I reread Sommerville’s article it sounds quite reasonable and is consistant with the facts. Your analysis is neither.

Ordinary citizens are taught the basics of physics, chemistry and biology, yet “climate science” is the one super special subject out of 500 years of hard science that the public cannot be taught. Starts with an F, ends with a D…

that is ONLY because denier sites have spent an inordinate amount of time offering science-like devastating but innacurate rebuttals of real science.
It is the same in understanding evolution. it is pretty straightforward, except when you have a hardcore group of ideologues who believe it is inconsistent with their core identity. So if you read evolution deniers, there is again all this pseudo science that seems absolutely certain, unless one knows the real science quite well.
With anti-evolution it is only attacks on the theory, there are no explanations except -God did it, which is not science.
Similarly with climate deniers, it is only attacks on human caused greenhouse effect causing environmental destruction, and no explanation of what is causing current warming. Often the arguments are mutually exclusive. It isn’t warming AND the warming is natural. The same for an anti evolution. those who believe the earth is 4,000 years old, and those who believe in real cosmology, even though their views are totally incompatible, pretend that they have a common cause.

the connection to evolution is a that when pseudo science is used to confuse a scientific topic, then it requires a much greater understanding of the issue. this occurs in a similar fashion with similar psychologies in anti-evolution propaganda and anti-ACC propaganda.
Ant-ACC proponents don’t argue with their allies who have beliefs that are totally inconsistent with theirs because the whole point is to destroy the enemy, not find the truth.
Deniers don’t care WHY ACC is wrong, they just have to make sure it is. If they believe greenhouse theory or not. If they believe in mythical natural variation or not. if they believe in high sensitivity or low sensitivity, if they believe in cosmic rays, or cloud forcings. Whatever answer disproves ACC is the right one and they will gladly give up their pet theory if something else turns out to be right. Because as with anti-evolutionists it is the ideology that is important. ACC threatens cherished beliefs about a free market (although it really doesn’t), and Evolution threatens cherished beliefs about a creator (although it really doesn’t), so as long as the evil theory is disproved anything else is OK.

Tony:
ACC is not a theory. It is an opinion. Those providing the opinion do not agree to the extent of the opinion and it can not be predicted which would make it a hypothesis which could be tested.
There is not prediction. Whenever any one attempts to pin down a testable prediction the opinion changes.
ACC does not threaten anything because it only exists in your fantasy and that of your peers.
You or the Climatologists have not disproved / falsified the natural climate variation theory. More technically it would be called the Null hypothesis that your group is attempting to falsify.
BTW: Natural variation includes all the natiral weather drivers like solar, cosmic rays, clouds, A TRUE greenhouse theory, a bit of both low and high sensitivity ( sensitivity as in all else is not constant).
The only MYTH being promoted on this site is ACC/ AGW/ ACD or whatever you want to call your nightmare you are trying to promote and it is being promoted by you.

Well, I am glad that my posts have not stopped you from asserting your unscientific beliefs.
Tell me what predictions does your null theory make? What predictions would it have made 30 years ago? As I have said the predictions of ACC have been born out to the point that even things that weren’t thought of initial have come to pass in ways no one expected.
Actually ALL climate scientists accept that there is natural variation, and that has been understood with increasing sophistication for current and past climate conditions.
Does your theory predict more warming? there are differneces in how wamring from solar and GHG implement. How do you differentiate them?
But I am not promoting anything. And my peers aren’t promoting anything. there are hundreds or thousands of scientists, who are explaining how climate works and changes.
All I am doing is engaging people who use pseudo science to argue in blogs that they understand science better than people who have spent their lives studying the issue and who have to be rigorous enough to pass peer review in some of the most demanding scientific journals in the world.
If your theory is sound then it should be advanced in the scientific literature. if it is not and is valid, it should be very easy to PROVE corruption, not just assert it. and it will be one of the biggest revolutions in scientific history.

Tony:
You are the one promoting Pseudo Science.
All your so called predictions have not even been predictions.
Stop by Real Climate and ask what is the latest prediction that Gavin made with his multi million dollar computer and model runs.
Do find us a prediction that came true that was made by all your thousands of climatologists.
The prediction I am following is the one that states that the globe has been trending towards the next maximum glaciation and will continue.
The future path of climate will generally follow the average of most of the past interstadials ( some geologists think we are stll experiencing glaciation as the polar regions still contain ice / glaciers. That would put us in an Interstadial rather than a full interglacial,) that the globe has experienced since the start of the current ICE AGE or as it has progressed since the shift that happened to produce the 120 thousand year (approx) oscillation the global weather is now following.
Whether it is an interstadial of interglacial we are experiencing is a semantics issue for geologists!
The average trend would be a slow decline to maximum glaciation in about 70 or 80 thousand years. As has happened in the past 5000 years of cooling the globe will experience short terms of warming such as the Minoan Warm Period, The Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. Some claim these were regional events. That may be as all weather is regional events which either compliment or conflict with each other.
Periods of transition provide us with weather extremes, but the weather is ALWAYS in transition (CLIMATE CHANGE).
On to the prediction.
past trends show we should experience a cooling trend for a period of between 20 and 40 years that would have begun around 1995 or as late as 2015. Chances are it started in 2005 which would be average length of past trends. That would mean (depending on the start date of the current cooling trend) sometime between 2025 to 2055 the globe will start a minor warming trend again.
IF and that is a big IF a longer cycle comes into play we can probably expect the globe to continue cooling until later in the century. I am not in the group that leans towards the longer term cooling but it is possible and would be within the observed historical trends.
All testable and in the geologic records along with the written records from many societies throughout written history and handed down legends.
I deliberately left out the effects of a future major volcano eruption. That is not an if or maybe but a reality. History again supports my position and general physics. It is just a matter of time before the next major eruption occurs. Depending on the extent of the output the weather will be affected.

You surprised me. Real predictions. And they are inconsistent with ACC which predicts continued warming.
So if there is continued warming for the next 10 years or so, then what will that mean since ACC can’t possibly be right?
As I have said, there are many predictions for ACC. In fact that is what all the fuss is about! If ACC made no predictions all the anti ACC sites would have nothing to write about. And since the predictions have been fairly accurate, in spite of your protestations to the contrary, the vast majority of the scientific community accepts the theory.
But since you have now presented a seemingly consistent theory with predictions why don’t you submit it for peer review and see what actual experts in all the areas that your theory has impacts have to say about it?

Like the Mendenhall Glacier. Though it is easy to find the information that it is retreating, you post something implying it is not. Is it a conspiracy? Or is it a mistake? Do you care? Just throw stuff at ACC and hope it sticks?
And the Hansen paper. it is a fine piece of real science, Not perfect, but it was when a scientific consensus was just starting, and it lays out many of the issues and factors. Yet all you see is that one prediction is not perfect.
That is just like the anti evolutionist way of arguing.

and then the whole is the greenhouse effect real. You have yet to weigh in in those on the Pinocchio post that argue with your assertion that the science is settled in regard to that “straw man” attack.

My main interest is on how people set up their world views and how self image projects world view. How people mold reality to fit their core beliefs, and how to reconfigure self image to be more in line with reality.
The reason anti-ACC is mostly among extreme conservatives, is because it conflicts with the cultural bias of “free markets”. Since solving the problem will require actual co-operation among governments and regulations that affect free market principles, it HAS to be wrong. it is evil and must be destroyed. There can be no grey area. If ACC required ONLY market based solutions, the extreme right would be fanatically supporting it.
of course to a lesser extent the opposite is true among leftists. ACC fits with a narrative of co-operation and limits to corporate control, so there are those that support it solely for that reason. Of course there are a few extreme leftists who oppose acc because they have constructed it a complex plot by government AND industry to institute a fascist control of the country. Pilke Jr. somewhat fits that profile.

I personally believe ACC could be an inadequate explanation. Not wrong. But it is possible that there are factors that are unknown or improperly understood that will limit warming. Lindzen or Spencer or others could be on the right track, or there could be something not yet understood. I think the science is pretty comprehensive though, so I doubt that to be the case, but I am at least open to the possibility. I do take in new information and see where it leads, and don’t just try to find information that proves I am right.

So let’s compare the adoption of continental drift theory to the current state of climate science.
the experts in geology did not accept continental drift because they didn’t bother examining it, and because the technology for testing was just becoming available. Once the hypothesis WAS tested most geologists admitted it very quickly.
I have yet to see any consistent scientific argument that competes with ACC. Each skeptic/denier has has own pet theory, many are contradictory. There is NO competing theory. History of science shows clearly that the status quo cannot be overthrown unless there is something to replace it. And as long as deniers accept ANY criticism, no matter how it contradicts other criticisms, there will be no competing theory.
You guys should really get your act together. But of course if you pick ONE theory it might be easily proven wrong and you can’t allow that to happen, so it is safer to just fling mud and feel superior.

Any school child can (and does) see that the edges of the continents line up across the Atlantic like a jigsaw puzzle, and it was widely understood that geologic and paleontological features lined up across opposite sides of the ocean.

The reality of continental drift was painfully obvious. Earthquakes happen all the time and the land moves. The 1906 San Francisco earthquake had movements of 20 feet. Why would anyone doubt that the land moves?

Problem is, the vast majority of scientists aren’t particularly bright and they just fall back on group think.

it is also painfully obvious that the sun goes around the earth and that flies spontaneously generate from garbage, that phlogiston is the element that allows fire, and that giraffe’s necks are long because they had to reach up for food.
yes, these scientists were stupid. Sometimes scientists are. the ones that developed relativity quantum mechanics were not. Climate science is much much more sophisticated than geology, and not as easily tested as physics, but again the geologists came to their senses when provided with evidence, as have climate scientists when shown multiple lines of evidence supporting ACC. there were scientists that did not accept the Earth going around the sun for a long time, and Einstein did not accept Quantum mechanics, though at least he had the grace to accept the science and the integrity and intelligence of his opponents. In my view your point validates my position.

One of the two major culprits at the CRUs admitted, within the past year, that there has been no statistically warming in the past 15 years. I’ll leave it to Lazarus to confirm that inasmuch as those idi0ts are apparently his idols.

Yes it was said that there was no statistically significant warming in the HadCRUT data set. It was in fact just short of the 95% statistically significant level and I’m not sure if that will still be the case after this year. But that is far from being the same thing as saying there has been no warming in over a decade and I’m sure the difference between the two have been discussed here before.

I believe the GISS data using the better coverage by satellites did reach the statistical significance in scientific terms. But anyway you look at the data, there has been warming in the last decade.

Thanks for the link to your ‘science’ article. As a standard list of denier arguments it is quite impressive.

But it is spoiled by references to blogs and the likes of ‘passive smoking isn’t harmful’ Stringer and Marty Feldmans love child the kook Monckton.

thanks for the links. I have only done a cursory look through, and immediately see major problems with your presentation of the “facts”, and the way you characterize scientists that support ACC. Your interpretation of the temperature readings and the reaction of CRU scientists is clearly paranoid and not credible, unless one only reads from denier sites like “Watts up” and Moncton. As I often find you both state that the temperature increases are not real and that they are natural at the same time. You really have to pick one. If they ARE real there is no need to fudge the raw data, if they AREN’T real then one has to show a conspiracy to do so, since all sources of temp data (except recent tre proxies) show increased temp.

Also you characterization of of climate scientists not believing there has been much natural variation in the climate is absolutely wrong. Both the MWP and LIA are quite well accepted and there has been reasonable attribution for those changes. There is a clear correlation between CO2 and Temperature increase. You argument about the current stable or cooling is exactly the opposite of the reality. You give NO ATTRIBUTION for the current warming accept for the idea of natural cycles. That is not science, that is polemics. You need not prove anything. As long as the temp keeps rising you can always say it is natural until it reaches a point higher than some arbitrary point that you don’t specify. If the temp goes down you can say, well that part fo the cycle is no over. your position is not falsifiable. The temperature has been increasing since the 70’s with no significant increase in other source of attribution than CO2. the cooling form the 40’s has been attributed to aerosols which were just then becoming a world wide issue, and it is only AFTER WWll that the massive infusion of man produced CO2 really occurred.
You are correct that in the past CO2 increase followed Temp increase. But there was no artificial source of CO2 in the past. now there is. If you can show that in the past there was a major release of CO2 over a short period of time, and barring some other major factor, the temp actually went down, you would have a very good point. But none of your graphs show that.
Also your temp graphs, do not fit with the ones I am familiar with, that show 1998 as a huge spike, partly due to el niño and that temps have been increasing since then until in 2005 and this year, they reached that same peak.
So even in spite fo the fact that ten years is not an appropriate time period, unless you can give attribution for the warming by a cause other than CO2 then the current 1o year period does in deed show significant warming, not a plateau and certainly not cooling.

I see the Zombies are still trying to raise their Pseudo science from the grave it now rests in.
Best guess estimates run through models are facts?
Using tree cores that are opposed in the same tree is reality?
Hansen’s Business as usual prediction in 1988 is consistent with the last 20 years?
Hansen basing his claims of Climate based on less than 10 years of warming is compatible with the 30 years is required to see a statistically significant trend in climate?
There are already lots of fantasy writers for people to read without your contributions.
Steven: They used regional observations as inputs into models but threw out the outliers as they did not fit the desired results. There are no error bars in a prediction. projection or a scenario. The model runs either get it right or fail and need to be rethought. All the model runs for global climate research have failed and the IPCC agrees because they use the average of the model outputs, as if 22 wrongs make a right. The current state of climate research says that any future climate condition is consistent with their projections which makes the entire field a complete waste of money and those practicing in the field equal to welfare recipients as they are not providing anything of practical value.
The NGOs that are promoting AGW, ACC, ACD, or whatever they now claim it is are leaches on the rest of humanity sucking the future life out of the entire human race.
It is time to place them on trial for the lives that have been lost because of their false prophets that they promote.
Dishonesty, misdirection, lies, fantasies, these are a few words to describe what is produced by the propaganda machine that claims to be scientists researching a fairy tale.

I’m not on for a quiz but I am grateful to you for providing the google link – and the article itself. Great stuff! I wasn’t successful at latching on to some of the last links, starting with “objectivistindividualist” and they may need your editing attention. Thanks again.

I failed to add a situation that this article brings to mind.
Scripp’s oceanographic Institute was founded as a research institute to provide jobs for people retiring from the service after WW2 and it is founded to generate research projects.
Sure it is about researching the ocean. First it is about getting a fair share of the research funds available for researchers. It has produced a negative ROI and would have been disbanded in the competitive world of business as would have the rst of the Climatologist community.
Jim Hansen was hired by NASA to study the feasibility of exploring and colonizing Venus and Mars. When that mission was scrapped because it was determined a waste of money a new goal was found to continue the make work program those people were involved in. Hansen developed the computer model, or had a hand in the develop it, that was used to model the atmosphere of the other planets. It was then used ot model the coming ice age and converted to provide plausible evidence of global warming which was provided to Congress in 1988 with the famous stage crafted circus event Big Jim put on for Congress to push for funding of meaningless research.
A guy down on his luck some times stand s on the street corner begging for money. Big Jim has made it his life’s work to do a better job of begging for money and he inspired others to foll0ow suit. Even Brother Al was impressed with Big Jim and used him as a model in his endeavors. And all that lead to the IPCC circus now playing every 5 or so years. The greatest fantasy show on earth with tons of people riding the money wagon.
The skeptics are the real scientists and the deniers are thse who ignore the reality of natural weather patterns that have driven global weather since the globe started having weather and is still the primary driving force. There is no magic bullet that struck in the 70s to change that.
If you want to separate out one item of your bull shit at a time and discuss it, Fine until I will consider it just more garbage from the climatologist garbage factory.
You really need to take lessons from fortune tellers and astrologers, Their predictions make some sense and are not as easy to discredit.

I am waiting to hear from Lintzen about all the valid scientific articles that are turned down by all the peer reviewed journals, even though they are totally valid research disproving ACC.
I keep telling all the other geniuses I come in contact with on these sites to send their papers to him so that he can validate their results. Especially because the person who proves ACC is wrong will be hailed as one of the greatest scientists ever as well as the savior of mankind from the folly of the evil climate scientists.
But the fortune tellers ARE easy to discredit if the make specific predictions. Climate scientists do, yet deniers seem very hesitant to.

TonyD:
If you can provide evidence that GHGs, specifically CO2 released by humans has caused any warming outside of natural variations you will be able to do what no man that came before you has done. Until then just keep on providing us with evidence that Climatology is NOT any form of science as it does not even fit into the category of pseudo science any more.

If you mean can I prove that any GHG’s have caused temperatures outside of the range of all temperatures in the history of the planet, well you have me there. if you mean something else please explain it better.
So you believe that all scientists, including skeptics like Lindzen, Michaels, who believe that GHG’s cause temperature increase are fools or part of the conspiracy? And the entire peer reviewed system of all the major scientific journals is pseudo science?

Tony:
All you need to do is provide evidence that warming was primarily caused by human contributions and it was outside of natural climate variations which were due to happen anyway.
You think you are smart so that should be easy.
Are you referring to the already failed predictions of Hansen, the MET office, Phil Jones, Schneider, and to many others to mention right now. OH wait! I almost forgot the current crop of alarmists do not make predictions that can be tested because that would make them real scientists, Which they are not.
Those like Michaels, Spencer, Lindzen, and a few other real scientists make real predictions and ask others to test their work. I have actually read of some that corrected past work and ( Heaven Forbid) They admitted they made a mistake.
No va;id research is needed to prove ACC is wrong because there is no valid research that proves it is real. Just Wild ASS Guesses.
I am sure glad you stopped by to participate in a discussion!
You are doing really well to prove my points.

Mike, your use fo the term “natural variation, is meaningless. There is no such actual physical property as natural variation. There are specific processes, events or concrete phenomenon that cause things to happen.
ACC postulates recent massive increases in CO2 cause increase in absorption of certain wavelengths that are then retained in the earth that wouldn’t be if the CO2 was not there. there has been numerous repeatedly verified research that confirms this. Hanson, MET, Jones and Schnieders predictions of temp have been fairly accurate and conform to the theory. There are numerous predictions including a variety of factors in something called the IPCC report. Please tell me which scientifically published papers predict temp changes which were wildly wrong. Not the typo about Himalayan glaciers, which was not in a peer reviewed journal, nor the amazon forest dessication, or dutch sea level which are basically accurate, but a real peer reviewed temp prediction that has been wrong.
You mention Michaels and Lindzen, and Spencer, but they all believe greenhouse theory, and all believe that human produced CO2 does cause a greenhouse effect. Their arguments (which are not the same as each others) relate to homeostatic mechanisms that would mitigate the problem. Again, either there is warming and it is attributable to CO2 forcing, and temps will increase or there are countervailing mechanisms and the temp will not increase. You can’t have it both ways. ACC theory clearly says there will be more warming within certain parameters. It makes many other predictions which have been born out quite accurately as well. If temps increase, Lintzen and Spencer will be shown to be wrong. If temps don’t increase over the next 20 years, one of them might be right.
You will never be wrong, because you believe in the mythical deity “natural variation” and can adjust your theory to any outcome. Your contempt for 97% of the professional climate scientists in the world is quite dashing. I don’t understand why you waste you time insulting me, when they are such juicier targets.

Wow Steve. I totally have to apologize to all of you. I read much of that article. You are right Hansen insanely posits a TWO to FIVE Degree increase in temperature for a doubling of CO2 back in the 1980’s! No one believes those outrageously high numbers any more do they? He must be unable to show his face to other climate scientists any more for such wildly off the mark claims.

Or should I just say. You have got to be kidding?
Or was it my sarcasm regarding “natural variation” and you actually are backing me up because Hansen’s predictions are exactly in line with current one. I must admit I sometimes get confused when all you do is insult me

“the degree to which a global temperature increase is entirely dependent on an accompanying rise in CO2. The authors conclude that the climate sensitivity during the MECO led to a 2- to 5-degree C increase per doubling of atmospheric CO2.”

None of the ones I can find, Hansen and Lebedeff, 1988, PNAS, Hansen et al. 103 (39): 14288. (2006), show more than 1C, and that is the upper limit. The average is about 0.8c which is right on the money.

Tony:
You still did not provide real world evidence that ACC is happening.
Natural climate /weather variations are evident throughout history. Regional long term ocean atmosphere weather patterns, such as PDO AMO, AAO, IOD, AO amd others are obvious and range in time from 40 to 80 years in length.It has been shown that the PDO, for one, affects the weather patterns in the US. It has been shown that the AMO affects the weather patterns in Europe. These weather patterns are recorded in all types of history. These weather patterns will continue and there is lots of peer reviewed papers regarding the patterns I am talking about.
It is nothing Mythical like your mysterious CO2 catastrophic Global Warming which has not been scientific proven. As a matter of fact all the so called evidence you use is now in doubt due to some claiming to be scientists not following scientific practices .
Weather is chaotic and not predictable. Long term weather patterns which are known will reoccur in the future. You only have to look back to the climate shift in 1975 to see the PDO change and it is possible it again shifted in somewhere around 2005 or so but the temperature records are now so corrupted to recognize natural weather patterns.
You defend the corruption which is taking place so you are the problem.
For both you and Lazarus:
You defend Hansen who went before Congress with a graph based on his previous work which showed his predictions that were so far out of line afterward the claim was that the most reasonable was b or c in defense of his claim of Business as usual for scenario A. The entire fiasco was a stage act meant to show a need for further research by NASA GISS because others were not competent to provide the needed results.
Big Jim had the answers and all that was needed was more money.

of course you say all these things as if they are true. We can’t have a real conversation because you aren’t interested in looking at any other way of looking at things.
Yes all the factors you mention are real, and they are actual concrete things that affect weather and climate. And they are wlel known buy climate scientists and NONE of them actually affect long term global temperature, though they can have powerful local and regional effects.
You believe your assertions because you are convinced your ideology is right.
I will keep saying Hansen, Schneiders, et al predictions were pretty good for being at the beginning of a new science. I will say there is no corruption, (though I do have issues with how science is understood and practiced ). Steve will post an article by Hansen that he contends has wild predictions, and I will se that they are totally reasonable.
there is nothing I can say that will convince you that CO2 causes the warming, because you are aware of all the science that says so. You can see more clearly and know the truth and can see how scientists are corrupted, and I am either a fool or similarly corrupted.
You will not provide any evidence for corruption because there isn’t any, but you will provide all sorts of links that proclaim it.
The fact that ACC theory has correctly predicted all sorts of diverse effects, like night warming. Arctic warming, Seasonal biological disruption, Glaciers melting, Storm intensity increase and a host of other things some not even guessed at by the original developers of the idea means nothing to you, because there is an army of people whose mission in life is to find some fault, ANY fault with each claim, so that you can maintain your belief in this vast conspiracy.
As I just wrote to Steve, there is NO alternative theory. there are a host of mutually exclusive arguments against ACC.
I can’t prove CO2 causes global warming to you, because you a priori wont accept proof, but you are unwilling to make specific consistent predictions about what will happen in the real world because you can’t take the chance of being wrong. That is not science that is polemics.
If ACC was a corrupt theory like Lysenko-ism, it would have fallen apart by now. In Russia almost every scientist knew it was a fraud, but fear of Stalin forced compliance. No one is forcing almost all climate scientists to believe this obviously false theory. I know a few climate scientists and they are all quite intelligent, aware independent people, and a few of them would LOVE to prove ACC was wrong. NONE of them are making enough money to be swayed by that. and I will say again, the fame and riches that would fall to the scientist that disproved ACC would be much much more alluring for the mythical evil scientists that you seem to believe in.
Fortunately the market is outflanking the extreme right in this. Business people with any sense are already starting to adjust to climate change. It is sad that the anti science right is making it so much harder, but companies like Wal-mart are preparing and making changes to adjust, and making money doing it!

Tony:
That is where you are FOS!
ALL of the items affect long term weather and they have affected long term weather patterns for as long as the planet has had weather.
I could discuss this with a BRICK WALL and get a more meaningful response. I am interacting with you as you continue to show your ignorance about weather for all readers to see and for them to understand how the fantasy of AGW fries a person’s mind. In the real world you might yet qualify to take orders at McDonald’s, but it is doubtful you would get the orders correct.
Say Hello to your Puppet Masters! O yeah! Have a Nice Day🙂

It wouldn’t be like arguing with a brick wall if you read what I actually wrote.
But to save you the trouble I will paste it here.
>>Yes all the factors you mention are real, and they are actual concrete things that affect weather and climate. And they are wlel known buy climate scientists and NONE of them actually affect long term global temperature, though they can have powerful local and regional effects.<<

This is pretty much what you wrote, unless you believe that these things somehow transport heat from inside the planet, in which case they would have an effect on long term temperature.

Please explain to me the obvious ignorance that all other readers will see. What have I posted that is factually wrong?
I guess my falling back on that "peer reviwed" canard is pretty transparent. Imagine, taking seriously, journals like Nature and Science, when I have the people who know the truth right here, and in Watts Up, Climate Audit, etc. Of course they don;t answer any of my questions or ever admit being wrong about anything. I should be honored. (see this is sarcasm, not insult, and in my view much more fun. At least Steve uses some funny sarcasm sometimes!)

I didn't mean to upset you so, though your insults are pretty wasted. I am not going to get mad at you and throw insults back.
I actually used to work at McDonalds, and they offered me a supervisors position! As I wrote to Steve I find this fun, so i can;t take your insults personally

Actually I dispute your agreement with Point 2 ; the understand of the “greenhouse effect is well understood . I perceive the general understanding is pathetic . Virtually nobody demonstrates they know how to calculate the temperature of a radiantly heated colored ball .

I recently posted this on another blog :

What is absurd is that even PhDs in “climate science” either have never learned this most basic physics , or think it is optional . The Stefan-Boltzmann law says energy density is proportional to the 4th power of temperature . Virtually all our energy comes from the sun . It subtends about 5.41e-6 of the total sky . The most commonly cited value I’ve seen for its temperature is about 5778 kelvin . Thus
( 5.41e-6 * 5778 ^ 4 ) ^ % 4 |->| 278.7
which is about 9 or 10 centigrade below the 288 kelvin commonly cited as our observed mean temperature , up perhaps 0.6c since before the steam engine , essentially nothing since the 1930s .
As I learned reading boy’s science books in the 1950s , and was essentially Kirchhoff’s ( and Stewart’s ) insight 150 years ago , this computation applies to any gray ( flat spectrum ) ball , however dark or light . What’s absurd and an indictment of our government education is that anybody graduates from highschool physics without understanding this fact .

The commonly claimed 255 kelvin computation is in fact a little beyond what is possible for even the most extreme spectrum which displays our approximately 0.7 absorptivity with respect to the Sun’s spectrum .

Thus any explanation which “explains” our temperature by accounting for a 33c “greenhouse effect” cannot be correct because 2/3ds of that number just gets you back up to a gray ball in our orbit .

Well, I hope Stephan reads your post and acknowledges his conversion to the anti greenhouse effect group.
Though it occurs to me that he is PART of the conspiracy, along with the hundreds of thousands of physicists, chemists and climate scientists that must already know this basic science.

Bob A:
I agree with your statement that the GHG theory is well accepted. There are to many different versions of the so called theory to even call it a theory. It probably fits the category of various personal opinions rather than theory.
When a fixed definition can be agreed by all involved it can become a hypothesis to be tested.

WOW Lazarus:
When was the last time you beat your spouse?
WTF does that have to do with this conversation.
The observation is valid because alarmists are posting on this site by emitting CO2 which makes them hypocrits like Brother Al one of their heroes>

Mike, I realize that only super intelligent people know this, so I excuse your ignorance, but in spite of popular perception Vermont is NOT a huge metropolis, and there are actually forests here.
And the pollution from wood depends on a lot of factors. yes it can be a major source of many pollutants, but burned at high enough temperature and properly processed it is not so bad.
you should check out information from the Yale Forestry school. They have great programs on this sort of thing in their iTunes University section.
No need to apologize for incorrectly calling me ignorant. I am used to this sort of polite reaction from people on denier sites.

I did study it and the state of California does not allow burning fire wood under certain conditions because of the pollutions.
Yes I have a stove with a catalytic converter but even those release pollutants when being heated to the high temperatures. Your pellet stove is minimally better and probably worse because of the energy required to produce the pellets.
When you have a 10 cord wood crib to allow the wood to properly cure before burning it reduces the pollutants also along with burning hard woods such as Hickory, Oak, and Walnut.

Mike says;
“WTF does that have to do with this conversation.
The observation is valid because alarmists are posting on this site by emitting CO2 which makes them hypocrits like Brother Al one of their heroes”

In my observation isn’t? George suggests that experts in a field of study should not be believed if they set a bad example, you call these people hypocrites and show that your reasoning to dismiss research is equally flawed.

It was a direct and appropriate response that used a workable analogy.

You guys do this a lot. You never complain about off-topic comments from those who agree with you. But you have no problem complaining about a response to such a comment from those who disagree with you.

George. Sorry, but exhaling CO2 does nothing to increase it in the atmosphere. it is ONLY burning fossil fuels or liberating it and things like methane from a bound form that are the problem. Burning wood or any directly renewable fuel also is part of the natural carbon cycle, and in VT I know PLENTY of people who burn wood, or have converted to pellet furnaces.
it would cost me about $15,000 to convert from my oil to pellets, so I would gladly except the cash from readers here so that I can be true to my beliefs!

TonyD:
I burn wood and do not share your belief because wood produces even worse pollution than a bit of CO2. I burn it because it is cheap when you own a forest and the hazardous chemicals can dissipate into the atmosphere that situation is not one I would do in a city as mass produced power is the most efficient and the cleanest.
Thank you for providing a testimony to your ignorance!

Has this character Lazarus ever heard of error bars? Do you ever see error bars when some AGW guru throws up one of his “here comes the end of the world” graphics? No. Even basic science is ignored in climatology. Years ago when I completed a physics degree, I do recall error bars were the fundamental of any graphic representation. All physics labs were written up such that the theory behind the use of error bars was clearly stated and justified. Just like error handling in software…fundamental stuff but never addressed by wannabe art students masquerading as the current bunch of leading IPCC “scientists”

Of course I have heard of error bars. They work both ways, so if you are suggesting that they all work in the direction to cancel out the warming that is apparent in even Steve’s data, then remember that they could be in the other direction.

Historical written records do not agree with the latest from the establishment and when further tested the general direction taken by any adjustments are towards the warm side of the errors in the present and towards the cooler in the past.
A a matter of fact the errors are greater than what is being reported which makes the results worthless for anything.
That is reason to be a sceptic.
Lazarus has heard of “error bars” that is the best description of Lazarus’ postings.

FOr GOD SAKES Don’t spread that rumor around! That’s it, this was all fun and games until you throw a low blow like that (at least you didn’t call me a mime).
I am NOT a comedian. I am a performer who uses comedy in my show.

I guess you must be a climate scientist. I am sorry to have had the audacity to question anything you say. I must have more respect for authority and not question anyone who has a bigger title than me. Sorry. Won’t happen again

TonyD:
Actually no! I am a retired Systems Analyst and Trouble Shooter. The title for my position was (believe it or not) BSS!
It stands for Business Systems Specialist but I did enjoy creating variations of what the letters stood for!
Having met and talked to performers throughout my career which started in 1965, I know they are real people that fall for the same propaganda that others are deluded by.
In my youth I worked in my parents business and even met entertainers there. In a professional capacity, as a consultant, it was 1966.

I too know many performers, and some certainly are not terribly educated about important issues, especially science.
Some are quite deluded. In fact a friend insists that Obama is spending $200 million dollars a day on a trip to India. He believes this because he knows Obama is just trying to rip off the american people. It fits with his belief system so he accepts it uncritically.
He is totally convinced ACC is a socialist plot to destroy america, and just accepts information from sites like this one, without considering information that contradicts it.
I on the other hand get my information from many sources , and make up my own mind. As I said I am willing to entertain the possibility that ACC is inadequate, but I know climate scientists, and know they are quite intelligent and aware of all the real factors that are brought up in sites like this, so I am sticking to what the peer reviewed experts say, because it is consistent with what my own eyes see, and is consistent with past predictions and the possibility of a conspiracy or them all just being stupid is negligibly small.
I am especially leery of the anti-ACC positions because I have seen how often opponents will distort and outright fabricate reality to fit a narative of conspiracy. having read most of the East Anglia emails, it is quite obvious that there is no conspiracy, there is no falsification of data. What was clear from the emails, is that certain climate scientists hate certain deniers that they feel are purposefully distorting the facts to present a distorted view of reality. yet there was this massive outpouring of hysteria promoting the idea of corruption and fraud.
Over and over again scientists are misquoted or taken out of context. As happened on this thread about the Jones “no warming” (which neither you nor Steve nor any other deniers on this site, have yet to acknowledge )
I have very little respect for groups that have no interest in accurately portraying peoples positions, yet I STILL listen to information from them, because I do usually learn something.